Follow Blog via Email

Is “ENVIRONMENTALISM” another name for “COMMUNISM”?

Or even “NAZISM”?………….or Comunitarianism???……………..but I’m sure it isn’t Democracy!

In this “politically correct world” that tells us we shouldn’t “label” people or organizations with negative terms and “live and let live” ……because…well, …………hmmm…some asinine politician says so or a group of old greasy men like the United Nations says we must, doesn’t “cut it” any more.

When we see families losing their homes because of the actions of Politically connected Green Investors who don’t give a damn that their Green Wind Turbines are actually a giant PONZI SCHEME unleashed on the world and calling their noble calling “environmentalism” then we DO have to label them and use honest down to earth language!

Brutal and pointed, here is some sound reasoning in an otherwise insane world:

Here’s the essential common core of hatred and destruction in the doctrines of Communism, Nazism, and Environmentalism. Only the concretes differ, not the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.

Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.

Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.

Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species–our “fellow biota”–and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist “extremists” already openly say. The “moderates” merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country’s infant mortality and life expectancy.)

As the debate rages on about what we should do to protect the environment and stop global warming, there is something being completely missed by the average citizen. It isn’t some misrepresented statistic or inaccurate portrayal of future catastrophic events; it is the intent behind the entire movement. Since the years of the Cold War began winding down, a new threat has faced our nation and has now spread throughout the world. Its seemingly innocent attempt to save the planet from human destruction is nothing more than an attempt to stifle capitalist economies and provide governments of industrialized nations an unprecedented amount of control over their populations. It is a movement that would make even Stalin proud.

As we all know, pure communism fails miserably when put into action. When the old Soviet Union finally realized they could not keep up economically with a capitalist country like the United States, their efforts may have died, but the ideology lived on. This ideology was never limited to just communist countries as the idea of a free republic is not just limited to the United States. There are plenty of people in our own country who still share those same ideals the Soviets held. Once that ideology was defeated as a way of governance, their efforts needed to be focused on a new form of control and government dominance. What better way is there to make people want to give away their freedoms than to tell them they’re destroying the planet for future generations?

The concept for communism and environmentalism is basically the same. It’s actually pretty simple to identify as well. If you strip individuals of their basic rights and turn all power over to the federal government, the citizenry will be completely dependent on that government. The only difference between the two is the way this process takes place.

Usually, a communist regime is established by brutal takeover of the government at hand. Former leaders are murdered or exiled and the military powers are seized by the new leader in order to suppress rebellions and enforce strict new laws. Systems of communication, transportation, education, banking, and others vital to commerce and production are normally controlled by the new establishment. Property is seized and businesses are taken over by the leadership in order to control economic factors. Basically, you lose all of your individual rights and become a servant to the new government which will give you what they think you need to survive. It’s very oppressive and is meant to be that way in order to keep citizens believing that without the government hand-outs they will not live.

Surprisingly (or not), this is pretty much the same intent environmentalists have when promoting their hysterical claims about humans ruining the Earth.

Let’s be honest here. The science that is being used for all of the past and current global warming crises is incomplete and/or misleading at best. It’s downright fraudulent at worst. How can I be so sure? Have you ever watched your local weather forecast? How often can they accurately predict the weather five days in advance? How about 10 days in advance? But we’re supposed to believe that people can accurately predict the next hundred years with absolute certainty? Some of these scientists that are making these predictions are not even climatologists. Give me a climatologist that’s been studying for a few decades and says that it’s not possible to make such predictions, and I’ll be more apt to believe him than someone who is part of a consensus with very little credentials on the study of Earth’s climate, especially if these scientists are working for the government.

What’s worse is that most of the computer models used do not have all of the information put into them before the models are run. They require adjustments after the fact and many times these are made to reflect the results desired. Never mind the fact that none of these computer models have a real average temperature of the Earth because there are not reliable readings from the entire surface or atmosphere. Constant local temperatures cannot be recorded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean because there are no instruments to record them. There is no reliable or accurate, average surface temperature for the Earth, and certainly not one over the last hundred, thousand, or million years.

So, if we can’t get accurate readings and obtain accurate future climate models, why is there such a strong desire for new restrictions, regulations, and laws by environmentalists? Why are we trying to correct something through regulations and taxes when we’re not even sure what that something is?

The answer is simple: It’s not about saving the planet – it’s about destroying capitalism.

The U.N. is determined to control liberties, livelihoods and living standards

Climate alarmists have gathered in Warsaw for the Monday start of the United Nations‘ annual climate change conference, to lay the foundation for a binding global agreement to replace the now-defunct Kyoto Protocol and “save the planet” from “dangerous global warming.”

However, a new Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report documents that average global temperatures have not risen in 16 years, even as carbon-dioxide levels have increased steadily, helping plants grow faster and better. Antarctic ice is at a record high, Arctic sea ice is back to normal and, at current rates, Greenland’s glaciers would not melt for 13,000 years.

It has been eight years since a major hurricane struck the United States — the longest such period since 1865. Tornado frequency is the lowest in decades. Sea levels are rising at barely six inches per century. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl era and the 1950s.

Even the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has muted previous claims. It now says there has been no warming since 1998, and finally acknowledges that much of the world was as warm during Medieval times as during the late 20th century.

The U.N. panel’s 2013 report finally recognizes the role that solar variability plays in climate change, and acknowledges that its computer models inadequately represent cloud cover, precipitation and “climate sensitivity” to carbon dioxide. The report admits the models failed to predict the temperature standstill and were wrong about polar ice caps, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

In reality, the climate and weather events, trends and cycles of recent years are essentially the same as humans have been dealing with for centuries. There is no evidence that we face imminent catastrophic man-made climate change.

Unless we shackle the energy and economic systems that enhance and safeguard our lives, modern technologically advanced societies will be able to respond and adapt to any weather events or climate changes that we are likely to encounter in the coming decades.

In 2000, then-French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto treaty “the first component of authentic global governance.” Just months ago, President Obama said, if Congress fails to act, he will “redouble” efforts to “reach a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution” — and continue using theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to close coal mines, eliminate coal-fired power plants and regulate U.S. energy use.

Despite actual weather and climate observations, as documented by both the non-governmental panel and the U.N. panel, alarmists insist that we face imminent cataclysm. Some echo former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth, Colorado Democrat, and European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who contend that even if we are “wrong on global warming,” opposing fossil fuels and promoting renewables are “the correct policies, even if they lead to higher prices.”

The U.N. panel’s Working Group III co-chairman Ottmar Edenhofer has been just as blunt. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” he said. It is about “how we redistribute the world’s wealth.”

Island nations and poor countries support climate agreements, because they expect “compensation,” “adaptation” and “mitigation” money to pay for “damages” from rising seas and more frequent, more intense storms and droughts, which they blame on industrialized nations.

Not only does a growing body of evidence say these “disasters” are not happening, with the United States and European Union mired in debt, unemployment and economic stagnation, prospects for such wealth transfers are increasingly dim. Still, the demands grow louder, and the White House and State Department have already promised billions.